Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
@Richard1964........"Hebrew" NOT Messi Antic ;-) I am a Torah submissive believer in Messiah Yahshua (not the J guy whose name doesn't have the Fathers name IN it as it must). I also have NOTHING to do with all that christianity has been teaching from their mother the Church or Rome. The early followers of Messiah were "Followers of The Way" NOT christians. Christ is derived from the Greek "christos" a name the Romans used to exalt their pagan gods. No thanks. And the jesus name isn't even 700 years old and is by no means the Hebrew name the REAL Messiah was given.
@Richard1964........"Hebrew" NOT Messi Antic ;-) I am a Torah submissive believer in Messiah Yahshua (not the J guy whose name doesn't have the Fathers name IN it as it must). I also have NOTHING to do with all that christianity has been teaching from their mother the Church or Rome. The early followers of Messiah were "Followers of The Way" NOT christians. Christ is derived from the Greek "christos" a name the Romans used to exalt their pagan gods. No thanks. And the jesus name isn't even 700 years old and is by no means the Hebrew name the REAL Messiah was given.
You want me to translate Richard?
What does it say if he says he is Hebrew?
A LOT........For starters, it means non Jewish right off the bat
So far I like him but I have only read a couple posts.
Either way, those in loving support of the law in the prophets is a true soul to me.
David freaking loved the word of God he had, he saw the truth, a loving truth.
Last edited by Hannibal Flavius; 11-06-2018 at 10:23 PM..
LOL well, surprise surprise. I was raised Jewish, but due to the Ruach HaKodesh (what you call the Holy Spirit) I was blessed with an awareness of the true Messiah at age 18 and acknowledged HIM as the sacrifice promised to Avraham's seed as the sacrifice for ALL sin for those that would follow HIS Torah. Yup just read Psalms and it's verse after verse of LOVE of Torah and acknowledging it is THE WORD of YHWH. Exactly what Messiah Yahshua taught, observed and was. HE was the "Living Torah". Indeed King David LOVED the Torah and YHWH which is why he was blessed so very often and forgiven for his sins along the way. He understood the concept of "Teshuvah" asking for forgiveness and turning BACK to YHWH and HIS Torah. I also now and have for some time kept Kosher. The lame excuses people give for NOT adhering to eating that which was created for and given as food by the Creator of the Universe is truly sad at best. But to each their own. So very many completely misinterpreted the verses Kefa (Peter) was shown as if all things were now food that were not from the beginning. Wrong. He was being shown the Gentiles were NOT to be treated as filth but welcomed into becoming part of Israel, the chosen of YHWH. YHWH does NOT change......nor would he alter the given reasons certain animals were placed here to be scavengers vs. food for us. But I'm NOT judging, just sayin It's a bitter pill for some to swallow for some reason, but bottom line is you are either HIS being Israel (grafted or native either way) or you are NOT HIS. There is NO such thing as a Hebrew Gentile. As Shaul (Paul) said, you were changed to being of Israel and were not to remember your Gentile nature further. You had "crossed over" the word "Hebrew". christianity is NOT Israel. It's like having a leg on each side of the chasm. If you are following the Elohim of Avraham, Itzchak and Ya'acov THEN you will live Torah and be part of the promise. Messiah did. Why would you not want to? We are after all to be as HE was.
Rev:22:14 “Blessed are those doing His commandments so that the authority shall be theirs unto the tree of life, and to enter through the gates into the city".
Good enough for me, I don't keep kosher myself, but Jesus did say that whoever keeps the laws to teach others to keep the laws will be the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.
@Richard1964........"Hebrew" NOT Messi Antic ;-) I am a Torah submissive believer in Messiah Yahshua (not the J guy whose name doesn't have the Fathers name IN it as it must). I also have NOTHING to do with all that christianity has been teaching from their mother the Church or Rome. The early followers of Messiah were "Followers of The Way" NOT christians. Christ is derived from the Greek "christos" a name the Romans used to exalt their pagan gods. No thanks. And the jesus name isn't even 700 years old and is by no means the Hebrew name the REAL Messiah was given.
Just a string of religious claims that ignore the questions. I don't doubt that bottom line is Have Faith, Don't question.
It's a puzzle when you find Jesus himself breaking the sabbath and permitting others to do it and even justifying it, and forr trivial reasons, not doing something Good, never mind Vital. That is a findamental commandment. Or do you argue that Jesus did not reject the sabbath as unimportant?
You keep saying that, but I wonder what the relevance is. It's obvious that there was a split between Gentile converts to Christianity and Gentile converts to Judaism was a different religion altiogether. One observed Jesis law and the other didn't. And whatever is in the Gospels, that was Christianity.
Thus I doubt the claim that Christianity was a legal sect of Judaism for 100 years. I did read that Messianic Judaism (which would probably be a legal part of Judaism) went on for several hundred years before Rome imposed its' own Roman -Christian bishop. But I doubt that the Roman or even Arian Christianity was regarded by Jews as a legitimate form of Judaism as they had undoubtedly junked the Mosaic laws.
If you can give a sourse for that claim, I'd like to follow it up.
P.s Wiki has this on dual -covenant. This view is also reflected by modern Judaism, in that Righteous gentiles needn't convert to Judaism and need to observe only the Noahide Laws, which also contain prohibitions against idolatry and fornication and blood.[21]
Some Christians agree that Jews who accept Jesus should still observe all of Torah, see for example Dual-covenant theology, based on warnings by Jesus to Jews not to use him as an excuse to disregard it,[22] and they support efforts of those such as Messianic Jews (Messianic Judaism is considered by most Christians and Jews to be a form of Christianity)
It refers to the Noahide laws and the council of Jerusalem (which I doubt happened as in Acts, but Acts is based on Paul's mention of the letter from James). The James letter always looked to me so vague that I suspected that Paul was covering up much of what it said and claiming that it gave him just what he wanted. (I really ought to quote the passages) but if - as Wiki says (you can never be sure that someone isn't simply peddling their own beliefs) it was just saying that Gentiles following the Noahide laws would still have some part in the Kingdom of heaven when it came, Paul's view has some mileage, and it's possible that his opposition did come from more strict Jews and not from the apostles. But I definitely get the feeling of a change by Paul for deep respect for the apostles to near contempt. Also I have never been entirely clear just what 'part' the'associate Jews' would have in the Kingdom of God. You wouldn't find them invited to sit in the messianic Knesset, you can bet.
Not the kingdom of heaven but Olam HaBa, the world to come...
We (or I) had a look at this passage a while ago. The original common passage would seem to be limited to criticism of ritual washing, given that saying that what goes in doesn't defile demands a clarification, such as Luke (in a passage which has his money -grubbing fingerprints all over it) has with 'all things are clean for you'. The Mark gloss seems not to be in the earliest texts, so (whether or not taking Luke as a guide) the explanation that Jesus declared all foods clean was not in the original gospel, other than as strongly implied. So it would seem that Matthew did not so much delete the 'eat what you like' gloss but Luke added it and others added it to Mark.
Of course Matthew can't be refuting Mark 7.15 because he has it himself at 15 -10. But perhaps you had Mark's more specific gloss at 7 19. But as I say Matthew couldn't have seen that as it was not in the original Bibles.
We did look at this a few weeks ago, and we agreed to have different opinions. Mine was that Matthew used Mark (who made this about all foods being clean), but Matthew made this about washing of hands while missing the part about food.
As to the missing Mark gloss, do you mean 7:16 "if anyone has ears to hear, let him hear"? Because 7:19 is in the oldest manuscripts, which leaves your argument with a problem.
What year was it when Gentiles stopped keeping the worship system of Christ?
You tell me the year that Paul set up his first Gentile church.
[quote]What year was the Sabbath changed?{/quote] You mean dropped or changed to Sunday under Constantine?
Quote:
You are assuming that Jesus ushered in a lawless time to turn people against his own religion and his own people in order to turn Jews into Gentiles by instituting paganism and lawlessness. Again, Gentiles were converts of Judaism and the entire New Testament teaches this. You are stuck in pre concieved anti Semitic ideas.
I'm assuming nothing of the kind. I'm assuming that Jesus observed the Jewish (not Jesis as misstyped above ) laws and so did his disciples. As I said, even though I don't believe Acts, the writer (surely Luke - whoever he really was) seems to have understood that both James and Peter were observant Jews., It was Paul (for his own reasons) dumped the Jewish Laws, and the religion that he set up (and I doubt that it was really recognised as a 'legal' branch of Judaism) became even more anti Jewish and Jesus not just messia, but divine, and the people of those churches adapted the story of a failed messiah who had gone to heaven into a Greek son of a god who had gone back to heaven. This divinity - filled Jesus spouted the views of these post Paulinist Christians in a way that would have appalled the real Jesus. He damns the teachers of the law, he praises Gentiles for their faith.
I don't deny that there are passages that appear to uphold the Jewish law, but there are always caveats, 'you are not far from the Kingdom of God' (but you need to take the Christian step). The law will not pass away until all if 'fulfilled'. But we read elsewhere that 'the law and the prophets were until John'. The implication is clear - the Law was valid, until John announced the arrival of the Messiah, Son of God and concurrently, son of David. And then it was not needed and was in fact a bad thing that prevented people being saved.
Bottom line. The Gospels say nothing that was authentic Jesus but everything that was authentic post -Pauline Pro Roman, Pharisee hating Paulinist Christians. And damn the eyes of anyone who teaches a Gospel different to mine
We did look at this a few weeks ago, and we agreed to have different opinions. Mine was that Matthew used Mark (who made this about all foods being clean), but Matthew made this about washing of hands while missing the part about food.
As to the missing Mark gloss, do you mean 7:16 "if anyone has ears to hear, let him hear"? Because 7:19 is in the oldest manuscripts, which leaves your argument with a problem.
No, Mark 7. 19 "Thus he declared all foods clean". This (i recall that I read) is not in the earliest manuscripts
and, if so, Matthew did not 'omit' it. Luke added his similar comment and others added it to mark, perhaps taking Luke as a prompt.
But even if the 'thus he declared all foods clean' gloss was in the earliest manuscripts it still isn't a problem because even it is is original and Mark wrote it, it is a parenthetical addition of Mark's, rather as Luke added to his copy. Thus both had reason to add it by way of clarification.
Though I will conceded that it could suggests that something along those lines could have been original and Matthew did omit it or even if not, that he didn't add his own claification might support you case that, because he was jewish, he had more respect for the Mosaic law.
.......
I just had a look and there was a lot of wrangling about the reading of the parenthetical remark, but nobody said that it wasn't originally there, so I must be misremembering. So Matthew being a converted Jew is at least as valid a claim as a Greco -Roman Christian with an interest in prophecy and the Law.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 11-07-2018 at 04:28 AM..
[quote=TRANSPONDER;53575278]You tell me the year that Paul set up his first Gentile church.
Quote:
What year was the Sabbath changed?{/quote] You mean dropped or changed to Sunday under Constantine?
I'm assuming nothing of the kind. I'm assuming that Jesus observed the Jewish (not Jesis as misstyped above ) laws and so did his disciples. As I said, even though I don't believe Acts, the writer (surely Luke - whoever he really was) seems to have understood that both James and Peter were observant Jews., It was Paul (for his own reasons) dumped the Jewish Laws, and the religion that he set up (and I doubt that it was really recognised as a 'legal' branch of Judaism) became even more anti Jewish and Jesus not just messia, but divine, and the people of those churches adapted the story of a failed messiah who had gone to heaven into a Greek son of a god who had gone back to heaven. This divinity - filled Jesus spouted the views of these post Paulinist Christians in a way that would have appalled the real Jesus. He damns the teachers of the law, he praises Gentiles for their faith.
I don't deny that there are passages that appear to uphold the Jewish law, but there are always caveats, 'you are not far from the Kingdom of God' (but you need to take the Christian step). The law will not pass away until all if 'fulfilled'. But we read elsewhere that 'the law and the prophets were until John'. The implication is clear - the Law was valid, until John announced the arrival of the Messiah, Son of God and concurrently, son of David. And then it was not needed and was in fact a bad thing that prevented people being saved.
Bottom line. The Gospels say nothing that was authentic Jesus but everything that was authentic post -Pauline Pro Roman, Pharisee hating Paulinist Christians. And damn the eyes of anyone who teaches a Gospel different to mine
Yea, notice that he started calling it “his” gospel...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It's a bitter pill for some to swallow for some reason, but bottom line is you are either HIS being Israel (grafted or native either way) or you are NOT HIS. There is NO such thing as a Hebrew Gentile. As Shaul (Paul) said, you were changed to being of Israel and were not to remember your Gentile nature further. You had "crossed over" the word "Hebrew". christianity is NOT Israel. It's like having a leg on each side of the chasm. If you are following the Elohim of Avraham, Itzchak and Ya'acov THEN you will live Torah and be part of the promise. Messiah did. Why would you not want to? We are after all to be as HE was. 
